More unanswered questions over Libya

David Cameron gave an assured performance in the Commons yesterday as he defended Britain's intervention in Libya

Calm and reasonable, David Cameron gave an assured performance in the Commons yesterday as he defended Britain’s intervention in Libya.

His clear message, as he dealt deftly with critical questions from the floor, was that on humanitarian grounds, the West had no alternative but to act.

What a pity his colleagues have failed to show the same sureness of touch.

Take Defence Secretary Liam Fox. On Sunday, to everyone’s surprise – not least the Americans’ – he said Colonel Gaddafi might be a legitimate target. Then yesterday, William Hague appeared exquisitely woolly about regime change and committing troops on the ground.

However, the Chief of the Defence Staff was absolutely firm: The West had no lawful authority to eliminate Gaddafi.

By yesterday afternoon, this was being denied by Number 10, who were backing the Fox position.

When our servicemen are being asked to risk their lives, isn’t it the least they should expect that ministers and defence chiefs stick to a coherent line?

But while Mr Cameron deserves praise for ensuring this is a legal UN-backed operation, there are worrying signs that international support is already fraying.

The Arab League (admittedly a motley crew) are wobbling – while Vladimir Putin’s description of the action as a ‘crusade’ is deeply unhelpful. Nor is it reassuring that the U.S. wants to withdraw from the leadership at the first opportunity.

A Libyan man shows missile debris picked out of the rubble after a UN coalition missile totally destroyed an administrative building of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli on Sunday

Meanwhile, Turkey is holding up Nato’s involvement – and Germany’s support for action remains lukewarm at best.

Share this article

While it’s undeniable that the British and French aims in Libya are noble, too many unanswered questions remain.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox (right) arrives with Chief of Defence Staff General Richards (left) for a cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street, London on Friday

Yes, we accept that the UN Security Council’s resolution authorises ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians. But was it really necessary for Britain to bomb Gaddafi’s compound?

Meanwhile, huge doubts remain about who we’re supporting – and Mr Cameron does nothing to dispel them when he says: ‘Inevitably, evidence about the Libyan opposition is incomplete.’

As for what happens if Gaddafi uses his mustard gas, it’s no answer at all to say this is an ‘issue of real concern’.

But the biggest worry is that our exit strategy remains as unclear as ever.

Like Barack Obama, Mr Cameron insists our aim is not regime change, but only to ensure that attacks on civilians cease.

So how do he and Messrs Hague and Fox square that with their remarks that Gaddafi must go?

And what if attacks on civilians continue? With everything to lose, after all, Gaddafi and his henchmen have every incentive to fight on.

Like the whole country, this paper prays for a fairytale ending to this intervention, with Libya run by a humane and stable regime. But our worry remains that, once again, we may have started something we don’t know how to finish.

Abuse of power

The devastating list of charges against Britain’s power giants confirms everything this paper has argued for years about a profiteering industry that ruthlessly exploits the vulnerable.